You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by arni <ma...@arni.name> on 2007/07/21 18:37:02 UTC
Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Hi,
i just uninstalled FuzzyOCR from my system as it seems like its become
out of fashion to send those spam images that FuzzyOCR can read and I
noticed that I dont even need it to get the remaining imagespam above a
score of 10.
Thanks alot to the author, the plugin was great when imagespam was on a
high and no good rules existed to bust them through metadata ;-)
arni
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by arni <ma...@arni.name>.
Bill Landry schrieb:
> I'm running SA 3.2.1 and FuzzyOCR is running just fine here.
> Bill
>
>
ran fine on 3.2.0 for me ...
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
David Morton wrote the following on 7/22/2007 11:08 AM -0800:
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:43 AM, arni wrote:
>
> > Loren Wilton schrieb:
> >>>>>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
> >>
> >> FWIW, about 20% of the spam I got today had either a GIF or PNG
> image attached to it. Most advertizing viagra in clear text with no
> obfuscation, a few advertizing stocks. FuzzyOCR still does quite well
> here.
> >>
> >> Loren
> >>
> > I'm not saying that it doesnt work well anymore, i'm just saying
> that i dont need it anymore to bring my spam to above 10 points, what
> happened for me lately was the following:
> > image spam was above 10 pts already and fuzzyocr didnt run so
> fuzzyocr only ran for ham with images completely wasting resources
>
> > so i uninstalled it
>
>
> I upgraded a system to SA 3.2, which I see now is not compatible with
> FuzzyOCR yet. I started getting a bunch of image spam again. :(
>
> I wish I had it again...
I'm running SA 3.2.1 and FuzzyOCR is running just fine here.
Bill
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR - SVN Performance
Posted by James MacLean <ma...@ednet.ns.ca>.
Steve West wrote, on 26/07/07 10:59 AM:
> decoder wrote:
>> Try using the SVN Version (revision 132). This is basically the same
>> as the latest 3.5.x release but some issues with SA 3.2.x were fixed.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>> Chris
>
> We are running SA 3.2.1 and just wondering if anyone using the SVN
> version on a production server processing 10,000 to 15,000 emails per
> day? Specifically, I would be interested in hearing if the SVN is
> stable enough to be used in a production environment and what type of
> load gets added.
>
> thx,
>
> SW
>
Just upgraded to 3.2.2. Running FuzzyOCR SVN. Looking ok thus far. We
use to have (many revisions ago :)) spamd climb high in CPU and also
children taking too long to complete, but this has not been noticed to
date.
It is not _our_ busy time of the year but :
TOTAL Volume Messages Addresses Hosts
Delayed Failed
Received 1306MB 41693 14264 8
0.0% 546 1.3%
Delivered 1306MB 41149 48547 25
Rejects 109324 35410
Temp Rejects 106 5
We reject at connect (500 errors) so the Reject line would be SPAM /
Block list totals.
JES
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by Steve West <st...@gmail.com>.
decoder wrote:
> Try using the SVN Version (revision 132). This is basically the same
> as the latest 3.5.x release but some issues with SA 3.2.x were fixed.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Chris
We are running SA 3.2.1 and just wondering if anyone using the SVN
version on a production server processing 10,000 to 15,000 emails per
day? Specifically, I would be interested in hearing if the SVN is stable
enough to be used in a production environment and what type of load gets
added.
thx,
SW
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by decoder <de...@own-hero.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Morton wrote:
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:43 AM, arni wrote:
>
>> Loren Wilton schrieb:
>>>>>>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
>>>
>>> FWIW, about 20% of the spam I got today had either a GIF or PNG
>>> image attached to it. Most advertizing viagra in clear text
>>> with no obfuscation, a few advertizing stocks. FuzzyOCR still
>>> does quite well here.
>>>
>>> Loren
>>>
>> I'm not saying that it doesnt work well anymore, i'm just saying
>> that i dont need it anymore to bring my spam to above 10 points,
>> what happened for me lately was the following: image spam was
>> above 10 pts already and fuzzyocr didnt run so fuzzyocr only ran
>> for ham with images completely wasting resources
>
>> so i uninstalled it
>
>
> I upgraded a system to SA 3.2, which I see now is not compatible
> with FuzzyOCR yet. I started getting a bunch of image spam again.
> :(
>
> I wish I had it again...
Try using the SVN Version (revision 132). This is basically the same
as the latest 3.5.x release but some issues with SA 3.2.x were fixed.
Best regards,
Chris
>
>
>
> David Morton Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com
> mortonda@dgrmm.net
>
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGo7LoJQIKXnJyDxURAluRAJ9E2BMNncHnPymSY5BDCjr5uOOK+QCfZVll
6MOrbLP0OWQeveEi3raL9Nw=
=BkuK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by David Morton <mo...@dgrmm.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Jul 22, 2007, at 9:43 AM, arni wrote:
> Loren Wilton schrieb:
>>>>>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
>>
>> FWIW, about 20% of the spam I got today had either a GIF or PNG
>> image attached to it. Most advertizing viagra in clear text with
>> no obfuscation, a few advertizing stocks. FuzzyOCR still does
>> quite well here.
>>
>> Loren
>>
> I'm not saying that it doesnt work well anymore, i'm just saying
> that i dont need it anymore to bring my spam to above 10 points,
> what happened for me lately was the following:
> image spam was above 10 pts already and fuzzyocr didnt run so
> fuzzyocr only ran for ham with images completely wasting resources
>
> so i uninstalled it
I upgraded a system to SA 3.2, which I see now is not compatible with
FuzzyOCR yet. I started getting a bunch of image spam again. :(
I wish I had it again...
David Morton
Maia Mailguard http://www.maiamailguard.com
mortonda@dgrmm.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGo50uUy30ODPkzl0RAo21AKCTAMr7jzTWzGpK3OecGbZPf5C9sgCeINqK
sBInshdfo4UtouQAAuzoPsQ=
=8GFu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by arni <ma...@arni.name>.
Loren Wilton schrieb:
>>>>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
>
> FWIW, about 20% of the spam I got today had either a GIF or PNG image
> attached to it. Most advertizing viagra in clear text with no
> obfuscation, a few advertizing stocks. FuzzyOCR still does quite well
> here.
>
> Loren
>
I'm not saying that it doesnt work well anymore, i'm just saying that i
dont need it anymore to bring my spam to above 10 points, what happened
for me lately was the following:
image spam was above 10 pts already and fuzzyocr didnt run so fuzzyocr
only ran for ham with images completely wasting resources
so i uninstalled it
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by Loren Wilton <lw...@earthlink.net>.
>>>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
FWIW, about 20% of the spam I got today had either a GIF or PNG image
attached to it. Most advertizing viagra in clear text with no obfuscation,
a few advertizing stocks. FuzzyOCR still does quite well here.
Loren
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by Spamassassin List <sp...@gmail.com>.
> Spamassassin List schrieb:
>>> Spamassassin List schrieb:
>>>>> i just uninstalled FuzzyOCR from my system as it seems like its become
>>>>> out of fashion to send those spam images that FuzzyOCR can read and I
>>>>> noticed that I dont even need it to get the remaining imagespam above
>>>>> a score of 10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks alot to the author, the plugin was great when imagespam was on
>>>>> a high and no good rules existed to bust them through metadata ;-)
>>>>
>>>> So what are u using now?
>>>>
>>> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_XX, SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT,
>>> DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO, SARE_GIF_ATTACH together with
>>> botnet, bayes and other standard rules is enough to bring all my image
>>> spam to above 10 points, even without cpu intensive FuzzyOCR.
>>>
>>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
>>
>> How do u get DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO?
>>
>> Using ImageInfo?
>>
> must be on updates.spamassassin.org or saupdates.openprotect.com,
> otherwise i wouldnt have them
I have updates.spamassassin.org, saupdates.openprotect.com and botnet, yet i
cant achieve HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_XX, SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE,
DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO, SARE_GIF_ATTACH.
What am i missing out here?
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by Spamassassin List <sp...@gmail.com>.
> Spamassassin List schrieb:
>>> Spamassassin List schrieb:
>>>>> i just uninstalled FuzzyOCR from my system as it seems like its
>>>>> become out of fashion to send those spam images that FuzzyOCR can
>>>>> read and I noticed that I dont even need it to get the remaining
>>>>> imagespam above a score of 10.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks alot to the author, the plugin was great when imagespam was
>>>>> on a high and no good rules existed to bust them through metadata ;-)
>>>>
>>>> So what are u using now?
>>>>
>>> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_XX, SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT,
>>> DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO, SARE_GIF_ATTACH together with
>>> botnet, bayes and other standard rules is enough to bring all my
>>> image spam to above 10 points, even without cpu intensive FuzzyOCR.
>>>
>>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
>>
>> How do u get DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO?
>>
>> Using ImageInfo?
>>
> must be on updates.spamassassin.org or saupdates.openprotect.com,
> otherwise i wouldnt have them
Thanks
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by arni <ma...@arni.name>.
Spamassassin List schrieb:
>> Spamassassin List schrieb:
>>>> i just uninstalled FuzzyOCR from my system as it seems like its
>>>> become out of fashion to send those spam images that FuzzyOCR can
>>>> read and I noticed that I dont even need it to get the remaining
>>>> imagespam above a score of 10.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks alot to the author, the plugin was great when imagespam was
>>>> on a high and no good rules existed to bust them through metadata ;-)
>>>
>>> So what are u using now?
>>>
>> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_XX, SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT,
>> DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO, SARE_GIF_ATTACH together with
>> botnet, bayes and other standard rules is enough to bring all my
>> image spam to above 10 points, even without cpu intensive FuzzyOCR.
>>
>> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
>
> How do u get DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO?
>
> Using ImageInfo?
>
must be on updates.spamassassin.org or saupdates.openprotect.com,
otherwise i wouldnt have them
arni
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by Spamassassin List <sp...@gmail.com>.
> Spamassassin List schrieb:
>>> i just uninstalled FuzzyOCR from my system as it seems like its
>>> become out of fashion to send those spam images that FuzzyOCR can
>>> read and I noticed that I dont even need it to get the remaining
>>> imagespam above a score of 10.
>>>
>>> Thanks alot to the author, the plugin was great when imagespam was on
>>> a high and no good rules existed to bust them through metadata ;-)
>>
>> So what are u using now?
>>
> HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_XX, SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT,
> DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO, SARE_GIF_ATTACH together with
> botnet, bayes and other standard rules is enough to bring all my image
> spam to above 10 points, even without cpu intensive FuzzyOCR.
>
> I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
How do u get DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO?
Using ImageInfo?
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by arni <ma...@arni.name>.
Spamassassin List schrieb:
>> i just uninstalled FuzzyOCR from my system as it seems like its
>> become out of fashion to send those spam images that FuzzyOCR can
>> read and I noticed that I dont even need it to get the remaining
>> imagespam above a score of 10.
>>
>> Thanks alot to the author, the plugin was great when imagespam was on
>> a high and no good rules existed to bust them through metadata ;-)
>
> So what are u using now?
>
HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_XX, SHORT_HELO_AND_INLINE_IMAGE, DC_IMAGE_SPAM_TEXT,
DC_IMAGE_SPAM_HTML, DC_GIF_UNO_LARGO, SARE_GIF_ATTACH together with
botnet, bayes and other standard rules is enough to bring all my image
spam to above 10 points, even without cpu intensive FuzzyOCR.
I'm not recieving much of it anymore anyways.
arni
Re: Bye for good FuzzyOCR
Posted by Spamassassin List <sp...@gmail.com>.
> i just uninstalled FuzzyOCR from my system as it seems like its become
> out of fashion to send those spam images that FuzzyOCR can read and I
> noticed that I dont even need it to get the remaining imagespam above a
> score of 10.
>
> Thanks alot to the author, the plugin was great when imagespam was on a
> high and no good rules existed to bust them through metadata ;-)
So what are u using now?